I am attracted to this post:
The next ‘double bind’ he identified concerned performance indicators — key performance indicators (KPIs), key information sets (KIS), etc. These cascade through the system, managers create targets for those below them, employees can’t question them or avoid them, and the institution can’t bypass them without putting funding at risk. Indicators and targets create a de facto representation of the system they intended to measure. Factors which are not measured are not candidates for consideration; and this may get out of step with the view that marketing or teachers have of the institution. It’s a pessimistic view… but an accurate one?
“We need to insist on using data to ask questions about the institution’s identity, not just to report compliance.” Questions we need to ask are:
- How can we do what we do better?
- How can we do what we do differently?
- Given these changes, what now is the University?
Griffiths asked: is your institution capable of asking that last question? Is the question prohibited by a double bind? Is that why our jobs are so hard?
In my previous post, I said:
The original conception of MOOCs doesn’t match most institutions – like round pegs on square holes, where risk management, policies and procedures, instructions, all directed from top to bottom (at least, that is how business models and management is enforced), even in an entrepreneur based business setting. Structured planning, well organized teams, alignments to educational goals and mission is set principally and centrally with standardized systems in place. xMOOCs are unforgiving in their own operations – no pre-requisites, no checking of prior knowledge and experience, no checking of identities (at least, that is not of importance at start of MOOCs), no checking of plagiarism or cheating (again, that is not so important, when learning is emphasized), no checking of learning progress (whose responsibilities would it be to check on learners’ progress? Surely not the MOOC professor, as that is mission impossible), and no monitoring of outcomes (there is no way of checking whether learning is achieved by THE LEARNER HIM/HERSELF) except with the automated machine assessment and grading, which is again unbeatable, when it comes to accreditation, as it is based on learners choosing the single “right” answer in the test. That is what 21st century education is all about. May be.
My comment in this:
As I shared in my post, MOOCs need to be viewed differently in an institutional framework, if a business model is to be adopted. Developing and adopting a vision and mission that embrace disruptive innovation and take calculated risks is never easy. It is however the best time to transform education through integrating pockets of changes, where a ground breaking attempt would eventually help the institution in morphing into a totally new world of education, probably with MOOCs.
MOOCs would only be successful in implementation if they are supported by the top management, as the financial and academic support required far exceeded what could be done through individual means. If we were to introduce MOOCs in the early 2000s through the grass-roots level, I would surely reckon that they would never grow to this stage. Even the Khan Academy requires the support from Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and Google in the form of grants in order to grow and develop. For Universities, the development of MOOCs could be challenging given that they wouldn’t be able to sustain such efforts for long as freebies, unless there are grants or support from charitable or Venture Capitalist organisations. It is hard to get such grants merely from the governments unless one could prove that MOOC works in the long run.
We are now facing international competition with MOOCs as online education and MOOCs became rich crop fields, beautiful open gardens, rather than thick walled gardens in traditional Higher Education Institutions.